Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as I said in our opening, I respect the fact that we are putting our values on the table. I have enormous respect for that. But let me just at least respond to the gentleman with regard to what he just said about taxes. Most provisions that they are talking about, that they talk about as being tax cuts for the rich or tax increases on the rich, we have to remember that the bracket they are talking about, 90 percent of small businesses, which are the job creators in my district, in Manchester, Iowa, and it is true for all small businesses; small businesses owned by women, small businesses owned by minorities, small businesses all together, are paying this top rate, and 80 percent of the increase on taxes on this top rate would be borne by small businesses. Two-thirds of the income tax filers in the top income tax bracket have small business income. If we want to create jobs, why would we tax the job creators? That is what we are talking about. And I respect the fact my Democrat colleagues admit they are taxers and spenders, but do not tax the job creators.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, so if the gentleman from South Carolina would go ahead and close debate on the Spratt amendment, I will close on it as well.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like to build on the comments by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) because he made them so well. In Washington, a cut, the definition of a cut and listen to this, if you ask for one thing and it is an increase and you do not quite get the increase you want, then you are cut. It is like my son, and I hope he is not listening. If my son came to me and he asked me for a $10-a-month allowance, and I only gave him an $8 allowance, would it be fair for him to scream that he was being cut $2? Of course not, because that is just not the way things work. It does not make sense. In Washington, however, when you do not get the anticipated increase you ask for, you can scream bloody murder that you have been cut. Unfortunately, time and time again Members come to the well or the floor here and they say we have been cut, we are gouging or we are eliminating spending, when in fact all we are saying is let us not grow as fast.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and claim the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time I have claimed in opposition be yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for purposes of control.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Okay, Members do not believe The Washington Post, we will go back to the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. The Washington Post may be understandably grumpy that Democrats are not standing with them, but we will get back to that in a minute. I want to show Members what was going on during the time when President Clinton was in charge of the VA budget. Look at that flat line. Look at that flat line for veterans. Look what happened when President Bush took office, look how we have been increasing it. It is one thing to come down here and claim what a terrible job Republicans are doing and what a terrible job that has meant for VA health care, but here are the facts: Under Republican control, under Republican Presidents, VA health care has gone up. But it is not just the number for health care, look at the number of veterans that we are serving. During this period of time, the budget authority for veterans' medical care, look how we are serving more veterans. Back during that Clinton period, which is the red period, we were not serving as many as we are now. That is why this is a good budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First and foremost, let me say that obviously we do not agree with some of the facts and figures laid out by my friends on the other side in their criticism of not only the Republican budget, which is the base bill here, but also the President's budget. Mr. Chairman, be that as it may, in good comity with my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but just for clarification I would yield to my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) under my reservation and just ask the question, Is there any bottom line impact on a monetary basis to the budget?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to myself. Mr. Chairman, let me start by letting the committee know and the House know that we have a letter from Secretary Principi on the subject that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) just spoke about. Let me just read from the letter and I will be glad to make this available as it was just made available to me: ``I write to strongly endorse the House passage of H. Con. Res. 393,'' this budget. ``The President's budgets have provided historic funding levels for America's veterans today. The Veterans Administration provides nearly a million more veterans with better, faster health care than when the President took office.'' So just in the last 3 years, 1 million more veterans have been invited into the VA than under former President Clinton. ``The President pledged to reduce the average processing time to 100 days and reduce the inventory of pending claims to 250,000. The Department is on track to meet those goals. ``When the President entered office, VA was providing care to slightly under 4 million veterans. Now, at a time when the overall population of veterans is declining,'' and that is unfortunate, ``nearly 5 million patients are being treated. The President's budget reflects his strong commitment on preserving the core mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs.'' He salutes the Congress, he says, and he strongly urges Members to vote for this budget resolution. A couple of other things I just wanted to mention with regard to veterans spending. The House level for veterans spending is the highest amount between the two bodies that we will have an opportunity to support. The House version is higher than the Senate version because the Senate, when it passed an amendment on the floor, included unspecified receipts, which is an interesting budget code word for copayments, fee increases, means testing. Those are ways that we get those unspecified receipts to be specified. The result is that, together with Secretary Principi, the House budget we present today is $1.2 billion above the President's request to meet the request that Secretary Principi provided to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget. If my colleagues want to support a higher veterans spending amount, they need to support the amount that is provided in this bill. Veterans organizations are getting snookered out there by being told that the Senate number is somehow higher than the House number. That could not be further from the truth. When you hide fees, when you hide means testing, when you hide copayments into an amendment and then pass it, that is not necessarily a higher amount because in our bill, in our budget, we do not accept any fee increases, any copayments, or any means testing to this program. It is a higher amount than the other body, and it needs our support.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to myself. The way that is computed, I would say to my friend, the way of course that is computes is we believe that by allowing a tax increase to occur automatically, that that is a tax increase. So we start with that and then above that is over the CBO baseline. So that is where we come up with $1.2 trillion over the 10 years of your budget. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), look, part of the reason why we are having this discussion is that there are so many people coming to the floor complaining about tax cuts for the rich. We know what you are up to. I understand that rhetorically, not the gentleman necessarily, but we believe within the party what you are up to, that is, you want to, what you say, is reduce this tax for the highest income tax bracket. I understand that is not what your budget says, but I am saying that is what the votes say on the floor time and time again as they come to the well, and that is, that when that is targeted at that bracket, what you are targeting, we believe, are small businesses which are creating those jobs. I understand that nobody wants to kill those jobs, but when people in small business are paying at that tax bracket, we believe that kills jobs. And that is why we do not allow those tax increases to expire. We believe that would be a tax increase.

Mr. NUSSLE. That is my understanding; and, therefore, I have no objection and believe that can be supported. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself. If facts are stubborn things, then why is it that you would increase taxes on those families you have just lamented $1.2 trillion over the course of the Democratic substitute, $1.2 trillion of tax increases. Why would we go through there? I thought, wait a minute, I thought the gentleman knew the song. He was talking the right words. He was saying the right words, but I thought he learned the music too. The music to this is reduce taxes, keep them low, keep spending under control, look for waste. That is what the budget that we have presented does, not increase taxes as the Democrat substitute does.

Mr. NUSSLE. You mean to tell me that the words to this song are cut taxes and control spending and the deficit goes down. My goodness, what a novel concept. We should write a budget that says that. In fact, we have. We have written a budget which is the base bill today that reduces taxes, keeps them level; reduces spending, keeps it level; funds the priorities of national security; grows our economy; controls spending; and gives us deficit reduction. Exactly the words to the song, exactly the right music and the reason why you should support the Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself. Mr. Chairman, there is not an economist in the country, not one economist who does not say that the economic recession that we had to face began under President Clinton. President George Bush inherited the recession from President Clinton. We worked to reduce it and get it back on a growth path, which we have done.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. Chairman, the interesting thing about my friends on the other side is that they know the words of deficit reduction and they know the words of fiscal responsibility, but they have not yet learned the music. They know the words to the song, but they do not know the music because on the one hand they say that we are gouging, we are cutting, we are eliminating, we are making it more difficult on the spending side of the ledger. On the other hand, they say how our economy needs a shot in the arm; how it needs to be growing again; how we need to be creating jobs. And yet in their budget, they do nothing on the spending side because they increase spending or on the growth side because they kill job creation by raising taxes on small business. So, yes, they know the words to the song. The words to the song are almost always easy to learn, but the music is a little more difficult to learn. So we would invite you to go back and learn the notes to the song before you come back next time. You have got to control spending in Washington. You have got to get the economy growing. That was the recipe of 1997.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself. What an interesting concept. Let me review the concept the gentleman promoted from 1997.

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. NUSSLE. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is going to go first, then myself, then the minority leader and then the Speaker, is I think how we are going to wrap up the debate. So I will allow the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina to begin the closing debate.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Let me just give my colleagues this again on veterans health care. Overall spending for veterans medical care has grown significantly in recent years. The Congressional Research Service estimates that it has increased from $17.8 billion in 1999 to $28.3 billion in 2004. That is 9 percent a year of increases, and we will continue that as we move forward into the future. Since 1999, spending on veterans medical care has increased from $16 billion to $28 billion a year, a 75 percent increase; and over the past 2 years, appropriation for veterans medical care increased rapidly, by 11 percent in last year alone. To come to the floor and suggest today that we are not meeting our promises to veterans is based on the veterans service organizations and what they call their independent budget. Look, I will tell my colleagues the same thing I tell them and tell my veterans at home. They, of course, have earned the right to request any amount they believe they deserve. That is not the issue. Of course they have the right to make that request. Our job, though, is to make sure that we fund and we make sure we are meeting the demands of veterans, and veterans under President Bush have gotten not only a promise fulfilled, but we are helping to ensure that the lines are shorter; that the care is better; and that it is delivered to as many veterans as possible under this bill. We continue that promise, and we do it at a faster rate than the other body. The veterans service organizations have been alerting Members because they thought mistakenly that the Senate had a higher number than the House. That is the reason that they were agitating over this; but when they have read it, when we have read it and when others independently have read it, they discovered that there are these unanticipated fees, unanticipated receipts, possibly means testing, possibly all sorts of things that are hidden in there in order to make that number look just a little bit bigger. Well, we are not going to do that to our veterans. We have already rejected that proposal; and as a result, the highest number that my colleagues can support is for the House base bill presented by the Republicans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 4

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for a statement.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let us just get back to this now. We were talking about the economy and, if this is doing so well, how come we are broke? All right. There are a lot of things that contribute to that. First and foremost, let me say to my friend from Arkansas, you have not heard me blame the Democrats. I blame Osama bin Laden. I blame a lot of the challenges that we had from the natural downturn in the economy. I blame the dot-com bubble bursting. I blame the corporate scandals. I blame a lot of things. You have not heard me blame the Democrats because, no, you are not in charge. I am not suggesting you are. Yes, you have stopped a few things from going through the other body. Yes, you have stopped a few things from coming through this body. But, no, I am not suggesting you are in charge. But now we are talking about a plan to move forward. You want to debate history? You can debate history. Let me show you what we are doing moving forward. As I said, the last 6 months of growth in our economy has been at the fastest pace in 20 years, the fastest pace in 20 years. So when you say, if your plan is so good, where are you going, we are going nowhere but up. In fact, the most recent data that came out today said the economy continued to grow at 4 percent. That is the first thing, the economy is growing. What have the tax cuts meant to jobs? All right, unemployment would have been higher without the tax relief package. It was at this point in time right there that we reduced taxes, and, as a result of reducing taxes, look what happened to unemployment. Unemployment went down as a result of the tax relief package from the line that it was on. In fact, we are at a lower point in unemployment than we were when Bill Clinton had his economic challenges back in 1993. We are reducing unemployment. We are getting people back to work. It is in part because of tax relief. Last, but not least, let me just mention this: 2 million more jobs would have been lost without the tax relief package. Again, looking here, without tax cuts, we were losing jobs at a record pace. 2.1 million jobs have been created as a result of these new tax relief packages that have been put into place. We are creating jobs. The economy is turning around. Quit blaming tax cuts for all the problems in the world. My goodness, that is not the case. And when you are in a hole, stop digging in the pockets of the American people for more money, more money, more money. Tax and spend, tax and spend. More spending in Washington, more wasteful Washington spending. My goodness, that is not what we need. People are telling us they spend their money better than we do here in Washington. Let us allow them to do it by keeping the money in their pockets. Let us keep creating jobs; let us keep the economic growth going strong. This is not the time to raise taxes, as the Blue Dog budget does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.